1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to head and neck protection devices for use by occupants of a car, aircraft, boat and/or other vehicle to aid in reducing bodily strain, fatigue and injury especially during deceleration of the vehicle.
2. Background Information
The driver and/or other occupants of high performance cars, planes, boats and/or other vehicles (collectively, “vehicles”) typically wear equipment and/or gear designed to provide protection against physical harm during use of the vehicle; but especially for providing protection against physical harm during sudden or rapid deceleration, torque or impact of the vehicle. Standard pieces of such equipment and/or gear include a helmet for protection against head injury and a shoulder harness attached to the vehicle for restraining torso movement relative to the seat and vehicle.
It was long ago realized that the neck undergoes various stresses and strains during deceleration. As such, various devices have been developed in an attempt to reduce the amount of stress and strain experienced by the neck during deceleration. Various structures have been developed to transmit loads from the helmeted head to the torso in an attempt to reduce neck muscle fatigue and extreme head motions. While these devices may reduce neck muscle fatigue and extreme head motions, they may also lead to other problems.
Present head and neck devices that have proven to be effective in reducing the forces on an occupant's neck by restricting the extent of motion of the head with respect to the torso rely on a restrictive force being carried partially or fully through the torso. In these cases the occupant is effected by the head and neck device with either discomfort and/or torso restriction during normal operation.
Those devices which do not contact the occupant's torso during normal operation are typically ineffective in reducing the neck loads or are restrictive on the occupant when attempting to exit the vehicle. Those devices that are both successful in controlling head motion and that do not inhibit egress from the vehicle also have a tendency to move with the driver during impact to assure that the distance between the device and the head of the occupant does not become excessive. This, however, is not desirable.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,638,510 and 6,009,566 to Hubbard show a protection device that works on the principle of the body squeezing two forward arms (extensions) against the seat belts during impact by the driver's chest pushing against the underside of the arms. A frictional material is placed on the upper surface of the extensions to enhance the adherence against the seat belt. This inhibits forward motion of the device and assists in overcoming the forward forces of the tethers pulling at the top of the device by the head/helmet and by the chest and shoulders dragging on the underside of the extensions.
The device lays on the shoulders and chest of the occupant during normal operation. This however, applies an increased load from the seat belts in this area, thus causing the driver or occupant discomfort. This is undesirable both from the point of discomfort and fatigue as well as the occupant or driver may not wish to tighten the seat belts to optimum tension, thus reducing the seat belt's effect under impact events. It is also noted that during impact and actuation of the device, increased chest loads are exerted on the occupant as the end of the arms are driven into the driver's chest. Also, since the device is trapped between the driver's shoulders, chest and seat belt, during a rearward impact the device may place high loads on the upper torso of the driver or occupant.
The device firstly travels forward with the torso and head during the initial stages of an impact imparting only minimal tension on the tethers allowing the neck to initially be tensioned as the head moves forward faster than the torso which is progressively being restrained by the seat belts. It is during the forward motion of the driver's torso that the device will finally bind against the underside of the belts restricting the forward motion of the head. The torso will still be sliding underneath the device while the head is now restricted, driving the torso into the head placing the neck in a compression situation. It has been shown that these loads are below the threshold of injury in typical crash conditions, but this sequence of restraint is not optimal.
The device is a rigid structure typically made of carbon fiber composites. Many shapes and sizes need to be made to fit different size occupants or driver, as well as different seating positions.
Another head and neck restraint system/device is known as the R3 head and neck device from LFT Technologies, Inc. The R3 device is a back brace type strap device that relies solely on the torso for head movement restriction. The R3 device provides fit and comfort problems by having a rigid structural device ride down the back spinal area of the driver. This may likely have problems in a rearward impact and thus impart undue pressure points on the driver's back and spinal area. The R3 device functions by having a rigid back brace strapped to the torso with an extended upward section to which the tethers are attached.
Another head and neck restraint system/device is known as the Hutchens and Hutchens II (Hutchens') by Safety Solutions. The Hutchens' devices use many straps that are placed around the torso, crotch and upper leg area to distribute the load of the head during impact throughout the driver's body. The Hutchens' devices do not seem to restrict the head motion enough to create a significant enough difference in neck load. Under impact, the Hutchens' devices are known to put pressure on the crotch area of the driver thus possibly sustaining injury in this area. This device also provides strapping around the shoulder and upper torso area in an attempt to restrict the collar movement thus restraining head motion under impact. In similar manner to other prior art head and neck restraint systems/devices, the Hutchens' devices attempt to load the torso in an endeavor to restrict motion of the head and to lower neck loads in order to prevent injury during an impact. This device does have surfaces that reside below the shoulder harness, but there is no forward restriction of movement induced by the shoulder belts.
Still another head and neck restraint system/device is known as the SRS-1 device by G Force Racing Gear. The SRS-1 has a metal T-bar that resides underneath the shoulder belts and one central tether. The T-bar slides along with the driver and has no restriction of travel under forward impact. The driver's head rotates down and forward around the neck which is along the single tether; therefore little to no load is placed on the helmet tethers and near full load is taken by the neck.
Yet another head and neck restraint system/device is known as the White device. The White device is a strap device that attempts to restrict forward head motion during frontal impact by placing the loads through the torso. Again, the tethers coming from the shoulder area are at the pivot point of the neck and thus do little to restrict the forward head motion; thus the likelihood of a neck injury is not reduced.
A further head and neck restraint system/device is known as the Wright device. The Wright device comes in three distinct styles. One style is an inertia wheel tethered to the chassis. This inhibits exiting the vehicle and has been shown to induce very large compression loads on the neck above 4000N. The second style is strapped to the body. The third style is strapped to the shoulder harness. These attachment points do not slide along the shoulder harness and are permanent. This has the potential of inducing large compression loads into the neck by restricting forward head movement too much in large frontal impacts. The device also cannot adjust the point of forward restriction respective to the amount of torso movement. This third type of attachment also restricts the driver's ability to exit the vehicle.
A yet further head and neck restraint system/device is known as the Isaac. This device runs along the shoulder harness doing little to lower forward head motion. It has two metal pieces, one for the left shoulder and one for the right shoulder harness. Although there is an upper and lower surface, they do not act in a cantilever action. The upper surface is used only under normal operation while the lower surface is used during impact but runs along the shoulder strap doing little to restrict head movement. This device uses small shock absorbers instead of nylon webbing tethers.
It is therefore apparent from the above discussion that there are problems and/or deficiencies in prior art head and neck restraint systems/devices.
In view of the above, it is apparent that there is a need for a better head and neck restraint system/device.
In view of the above, it is also apparent that there is a need for a head and neck restraint device/system that overcomes the problems of the prior art.
In view of the above, it is further apparent that there is a need for a head and neck restraint system/device that is both effective in restricting head motion with respect to the body in order to lower neck forces below injury level during typical impacts, yet not inhibit nor discomfort the driver during normal operation.
In view of the above, it is still further apparent that there is a need for a head and neck restraint system/device that is not attached to the driver's torso so as not to be effected by the device during normal operation, nor be affixed to the chassis or other features of the vehicle so that exiting the vehicle is not inhibited or made more difficult.